…let me just say that this article is as bad or worse than the science it purports to debunk.
I could write either a book on this topic or a short post. Since it’s Saturday, you get the short post. But here are my main points in response to Nina Teicholz’s case against the anti-animal-fat crowd:
(1) It is almost impossible to design a really good and definitive study of diets and what they do and don’t do, healthwise. There are too many variables impossible or difficult to control for, and people’s reports are unreliable as well.
(2) So you can find a study or studies illustrating just about anything you want, and others can find fault with those studies and they’d be right.
(3) You can’t pick and choose just a few; you have to look at the entire spectrum of studies on a topic (and that takes not just a book, but a very very long book, and much of it will be garbage in/garbage out anyway).
(4) It’s well-known even in the medical world, and many books have been written on the subject, that a simple cholesterol/heart disease connection is suspect, especially for women and the elderly.
(5) It’s not just animal fat vs. low animal fat, it’s what sort of diet replaces the animal fat if you reduce it: what type of new fat, what type of carbohydrate, what quantities, what else you’re eating, what else you’re doing, etc.
(6) Different ethnic populations may have different propensities to have trouble with different foods.
(7) There are mitigating factors: for example, a lot of red meat could be counteracted by a lot of red wine in some diets.
(8) Heart disease is hardly the only thing that gets us. Just to take one example, it’s possible that animal fat isn’t so much implicated in heart disease but raises cancer risk significantly.
In summary, how about the old moderation approach?